Flag Counter since 20091011

Hit Count Since 20110428

Archive for October, 2011

The girls made a deal with me: they’d make pumpkin chocolate chip cookies if I’d go get the chips. So, around 4:00 PM, I walked down to Jim Thorpe Market. And I just saw two Borough snowplows go by, clearing my street, as I uploaded these pictures; my congratulations to Mayor Mike Sofranko and the public works department for doing a good job.

Tonight: A slight chance of rain and snow before 1am, then a chance of snow. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 31. East wind around 5 mph. Chance of precipitation is 30%. New snow accumulation of less than one inch possible.

Saturday: Snow, mainly after 7am. High near 36. North wind between 8 and 13 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%. New snow accumulation of 4 to 8 inches possible.

Saturday Night: A chance of snow, mainly before 11pm. Cloudy, then gradually becoming partly cloudy, with a low around 29. Northwest wind between 6 and 10 mph. Chance of precipitation is 30%.

Uhhh, it’s not even Hallowe’en yet, and we’re supposed to get 4 to 8 inches of snow? What’s up with that?
_______________________________________Saturday morning update: It was just raining when my darling bride went to work, but has since changed over to snow. These pictures were taken around 10:30 AM:

View out a second-story back window. Note that some of the trees are still green!

It's starting to stick to the grass, but not the paved surfaces.

Click on any picture to enlarge. The snow is falling pretty heavily now, and my main concern is that it’ll bring down power lines. If you don’t see anything from me later, you can figure that I’ve lost either electricity or the internet, or both.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

If you don’t know what a MUD is, you’re not a kewl geek. If you do know what a MUD is, you might well enjoy this.

As a set-up to the log I’ll provide below, I need to provide background information. Shattered Kingdoms is a Roleplay/Player-killing MUD. Like other MUDs, all the players generally create “the best of the best” type characters. I changed it up a bit with this character.

In the game, there is a Harcourt Tower, with game-generated nobility. But there was no roleplay around it at all, so a friend of mine created the daughter of one of the Harcourt nobles and I created the House Magess, a bottom of the totem pole servant of the Harcourts. The girl was lower than all the Player Characters in the game, and knew her place in life. But she also knew her place in life meant she was forever tied to the Harcourts. Her life meant nothing; the lives of the Harcourts and associates of the Harcourts meant everything.

They sent my Tax Return back! AGAIN!!! In response to the question: “List all dependents?”
I replied –
“12 million illegal immigrants;
“3 million crack heads;
“42 million unemployable people on food stamps,
“2 million people in over 243 prisons;
“Half of Mexico ; and
“535 fools in the U.S. House and Senate.”

Share this:

Like this:

This is a totally confusing situation that on its face looks ill conceived. Now before the Lefties go all bonkers and say it was Bush who negotiated this, I KNOW that. But that was three years ago and the world has changed. Iran either has, or is close to nukes now, not then. Egypt was firmly held by Mubarak then, not now. Libya was held by Gadaffi then, not now. The Muslim Brotherhood has a grip on Egypt now, not then. Al-Q was pretty fighting in Afghanistan, and hiding in Pakistan, then and now. Syria, Saddam’s brother in the Baathe Party is killing opposition people by the hundreds. Israel’s treaty with Egypt is all but torn up. So, all this is to say, the world Bush lived in when Force pull-out was negotiated, is not the world Obama has found himself in today. Since then, Iran has grown stronger in spite of the world trying to prevent that. Iran hs sent ships to the Med. Iran says they will sail off our coast. Iran’s rocket ability has been improved greatly. So, my thought and opinion, it seems insane to pull out all our combat forces. I just don’t see that Obama has a firm grip on reality. Of course, we could keep them in Kuwait.

Barack Obama’s approval in Ohio is under water, at 43/52, and even worse among independents, at 39/57, according to PPP (which is well known for its over-sampling of Democrats). What’s worse, Obama and Romney are tied at 46 percent each in head-to-head polling, and among the 8 percent of undecided voters, Obama’s approval rating is a myopic 18 percent. (HT The Other McCain)

Barack Obama’s approval rating in Illinois is barely over 50 percent and he can’t even reach the 50 percent level in head-to-head polling against the Republican challengers. And Democrat Governor Pat Quinn’s numbers are even worse than Obama’s, so it’s doubtful Obama will want to enlist the aid of the Democrat Governor of Illinois, who signed into law the state’s largest ever tax increases, killing jobs in the process.

Barack Obama’s approval rating in New York State is 45/49 while his approval rating among Union households in New York State is 46/49. In New York – 9, Anthony Weiner’s old seat, which is 3/1 Democrat/Republican and has been a Democrat seat since 1921, the Republican won by tying the Democrat to Obama. The Occupy Wall Street mob who took over Zuccotti Park have enraged the local residents, possibly causing further harm to Democrat chances in the state.

Barack Obama’s approval rating in New Jersey is 44/52, 39/57 among independents, with 49 percent of New Jerseyites declaring Obama does not deserve to be re-elected.

It is possible Barack Obama could lose as many as 4 of the 5 “Northwest Territory” states after winning all 5 in 2008. It is further possible Barack Obama could lose New Hampshire and Maine, which he won in 2008. It is likely Barack Obama will lose North Carolina and Virginia, which he won in 2008. It is highly unlikely Obama can flip any of the states he lost in 2008 to his side.

Given the new post-2010 Census Electoral College distribution, if Barack Obama loses Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and New Hampshire — a very distinct possibility, with current polling data — and the rest of the states remain as they were in 2008, Barack Obama slips into a 269-269 tie with the Republican and it’s then up to the US House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a strong majority.

And with Obama’s 50-state losses in approval ratings, his 50-state strategy will necessarily have to be pared down as he will have to work to ensure he keeps previously reliable “Blue” states in the fold and struggles to maintain the “Purple” states he won. The reliable “Red” states? He’ll have to all but write them off.

You could also call Joe Biden an unintelligent, smarmy sleazeball who has constantly been caught in lies, but we already knew that.

UPDATE
The Washington Post fact-checker gave Slow Joe Biden the worst rating of “four Pinocchios” for his rape lies. Ed Morrissey has the linkage and the tale of the tape.

The question of whether Joe Biden has his facts straight is almost always an easy content generator for writers, and in most cases an entertaining mission. However, no one thinks that Biden’s claim that opponents to Barack Obama’s jobs bill want more rapes and murders is the least bit charming or entertaining; despicable would be a better term. Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post has another word for it … absurd. Not only did Biden and his office get their facts wrong — rapes have not “tripled” in Flint, but actually decreased in the period Biden cited — no one has ever made a causal link between police staffing and crime rates[.]
…
The Veep “should know better than to spout off half-baked facts in service of a dubious argument”? Hey, that’s Joe Biden’s entire life. Remember “Recovery Summer”? Does anyone recall Biden telling CBS News how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt went on television after the 1929 crash to reassure America, even though FDR was two years away from winning his first presidential election and the only people watching TV in 1929 were those experimenting with the technology? The only time I can recall Biden getting anything right was when he gave speeches during his presidential bid in 1987 about the hard life of his family — and the only reason he got it right was because he was talking about Neil Kinnock’s family in speeches Biden plagiarized from the British politician.

Obama’s three-day bus tour through North Carolina and Virginia — states crucial to his re-election race next year — didn’t change any minds among Senate Republicans, who filibustered Obama’s latest jobs measure to death just as they killed his broader $447 billion jobs plan last week.

The 50-50 vote came in relation to a motion to simply take up the bill and fell well short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster. Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut broke with Obama on the vote. Two Democrats who voted with the president, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana, however, said they couldn’t support the underlying Obama plan unless it’s changed.

Obama’s demagoguery of his “jobs” bill campaign tactic — which he created specifically for the campaign and not to actually pass muster — fails miserably as even Democrats are voting against taking it up for discussion in the Senate. So, yes, Obama is in fact creating bipartisanship: the bipartisan rejection of his campaign-tactic false “jobs” bill.

Ed Morrissey has the news. Illinois voters barely give Obama over 50 percent in approval, and while he still retains a lead against each Republican Primary contender, Obama cannot get up to 50 percent re-elect numbers. In Illinois, his adopted home state. In Illinois, the state with more dead people voting per capita than any other state in the union. This does not bode well for Obama’s re-elect chances.

Do I expect Obama to lose in Illinois? No. But there are other ramifications involved. If Obama is currently incapable of reaching a 50 percent re-elect number in Illinois (and any incumbent under 50 percent is in dangerous territory), his numbers outside deep-blue Illinois — especially those in the purple states — will be worse. And Obama will have to spend large amounts of cash to ensure an Illinois win, money he would rather spend in purple states like Ohio and Florida, in other states he won last time like Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire.

Obama’s polling numbers in New York and New Jersey are also alarming — to Democrats. Many Democrats have already made it clear they do not want to be seen with Obama for fear their being tied to Obama could cost them their own elections. And with tax-raiser Illinois Democrat Governor Pat Quinn polling horrible approval numbers in Illinois, Obama might not want to be seen with Illinois’ Democrat Governor in Illinois.

The Obama campaign had been talking about their billion-dollar-campaign plans, but the money isn’t rolling in like it would need to be. In fact, this time in George W Bush’s re-election bid, George W Bush had brought in more campaign donations than has Obama. And Obama’s big contributors — those Wall Street businessmen — aren’t all that into him this time around, for some odd reason (heh). And with the Unions losing Union dues at the same time they’re spending very large amounts of cash on other issues in multiple other states (Wisconsin and Ohio to name two), the big Union money will be harder to come by for the re-elect Obamanation campaign at a time when Obamanation is hurting for polling numbers and votes.

… Conservative blog-owners do like Liberal commenters on their blogs. In fact, Patterico’s Pontifications, a definitely Conservative blog (although it is California Conservative, a weaker version of Conservative than fly-over Conservative), has granted a known Liberal permission to post articles of his own choosing and making on its “The Jury Talks Back” side. Conservatives know the best way to sharpen steel is with more steel.

That is also why, if you read my “about” and my “comment policy” pages (found in tabs at the top, and strongly advised), you will not see “no Liberals allowed” in any form. I welcome Liberal comment. In fact, I used to have a Liberal “Matt” who commented here rather regularly prior to TBD’s dormant stage, and I wish he would return. But there’s something Conservatives do not like. And that malignant something oft-times confronts Conservatives where it matters most: How to keep a free and open debate alive (which is what Constitutional Conservatives want) without absolutely poisoning the site and destroying its outreach.

Dana Pico is far more “generous-naive” than I am in that matter, as he has not banned a single live person from his Common Sense Political Thought site as far as I know, while I have already banned at least one Leftist blow-hard (and have another targeted for certain banning if he ever shows up (unless I’ve already banned him)). And Dana Pico’s site has suffered the consequences, losing authors and readers alike. At least two of Dana’s lost readers have found their way here, with one becoming an author here (hooray for me), but the point is there is a form of Liberal that is respect-worthy and a form of Liberal that is disdain-worthy. And Phoenician in a Time of Romans, banned by multiple Conservative sites and disdained by multiple other sites, is definitely disdain-worthy. Perry Hood, disdained by multiple sites, Conservative and Libertarian, and even smacked down by Liberals, is another disdain-worthy Liberal. (I’ve written more than one article here discussing Perry Hood’s moronacity.)

The point is, Liberals who have integrity are welcome on most Conservative sites. Liberals with integrity and who are not seeking to troll are welcome on TBD (not to be confused with the site run by the Leftist Identity Thief and Character defamer who created a false TBD for such purposes). Liberals without integrity or who solely seek to troll or push their ID-theft defamatory sites can rot in Sheol for all I care.

What brought this out? I’ll quote my comment on CSPT (where I’m one of Dana’s authors, like he’s one of my authors here) and you can goto the thread or examine further details as you desire.

You see, New Zealand Socialist book putter backer, there’s a reason I respect Jeff. He disagrees with me 80 to 95 percent of the time, oft-times vehemently. If you check out his blog, which I visited sporadically when he was more active with it (before he got his “piled higher and deeper” degree), he is nearly completely in line with the Liberal agenda on fiscal and social matters (I have a dearth of information in my mind on his Defense positions). And most of his articles are written in a flame-worthy attitude, when considering the thoughts of Conservatives such as me. For example, he is very much down with homosexuals and their cause (while not being one himself) and I believe the Bible when it says homosexuality is an abomination and when it says homosexuality is unnatural and a sin and when it says people are in bondage to their sin. So, his positions are nearly all polar opposites of mine. Note: aphrael, who used to comment here weekly or more (to my mind’s remembrance), is most definitely a Liberal. He’s also most definitely homosexual and has a “husband” (that he doesn’t use scare quotes for). I disagree with him on nearly everything as well, but I also respect him as a foil.

So, Jeff and I are almost completely polar opposites. Jeff and Conservatives are almost completely polar opposites. Yet the long-term Conservatives and Libertarians here who have experienced the more blog-active Jeff will tell you they all respect Jeff, despite his being wrong on nearly everything. And there’s a reason for that. Unlike you, New Zealand Socialist book putter backer, and unlike the race-baiter, memory-loss champion of CSPT Perry, Jeff actually takes the time to try to understand the Conservative position and to research what Conservatives say. While Jeff disagrees with nearly everything Conservative, he does so honestly and with the intent of debating honestly and with understanding. Which is more than I can say for “The Two Ps in a Pod” (a phrase Dana coined).

A couple of examples of Jeff being honest and/or working to understand positions contrary to his own: I believe it was John Adams, however it may have been a different Founder/Framer, but Jeff thought he was a Theocracy advocate. I said he was absolutely not. Jeff researched and found out I was right and retracted his position regarding the Founder/Framer. But the bigger example is an article from his own decidedly and absolutely Liberal site, an article he wrote in January, 2010. It is that article where Jeff, being Jewish, states with clarity he understands millenarian Christian theology which in itself enrages a great many in the Jewish community. The fact Jeff is not Christian (and I have no idea whether he is a religiously practicing Jew or merely an ethnic Jew, nor is it all that important) would strongly suggest he disagrees with millenarian Christian theology. But he took the time to understand it, and understand the mentality of those who believe it.

Aphrael (who is blame fool enough to not capitalize his moniker) is much the same, but in a different vein. Both aphrael and Jeff are dead wrong on just about everything. But both aphrael and Jeff take the time to actually understand the Conservative position — while vehemently disagreeing with it — and debate honestly with that understanding they have acquired. That is why I have much respect for both aphrael and Jeff when it comes down to debating. That is also why I have absolutely zero tolerance or respect for Perry, mike g, Jeromy, that csbc or whatever it is clown, or the absolute worst of them: the downright liar and most blog-destroying of radical Leftist trolls: the New Zealand Socialist book putter backer.

Jeff and aphrael will likely never (short of a Saul of Tarsus miracle) come around to the Conservative position. But unlike those Leftists I mentioned above, Jeff and aphrael debate with integrity. And that is why Conservatives like me wish for more Jeffs and aphraels on Conservative sites and less trolls like “The Two Ps in a Pod”.

So Occupy Wall Street clowns tried to have a national event. It didn’t do so well. Except for the crazies and the lawbreakers that are part and parcel with Left-Wing protests. Because the crazies wanted to one-up the TEA Party, which had a national Tax Day TEA Party in 2009.

Apparently nationwide the protests did not fair much better, according to Nate Silver of The New York Times:

This exercise is meant, in part, to provide a comparison to the crowds that gathered for the first widespread Tea Party protests on April 15, 2009, for which I adopted a similar approach and came up with an estimate of at least 300,000 protesters across the country.

Saturday’s Occupy protests were probably smaller than that. Over all, I was able to find estimates of crowd sizes in about 150 American cities, ranging from the thousands of the protesters that turned out in New York to the roughly 10 who turned out in Juneau, Alaska — or the one protester who represented the movement in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Nevertheless, based on the median estimates for the cities, I arrived at an overall total of about 70,000 protesters who were documented as having been active on Saturday throughout the United States.

Nate Silver is not a Conservative or a Republican. In fact, he’s an admitted Liberal. And I took issue with his grossly under-represented number of TEA Partiers at the Tax Day TEA Party rallies in 2009, because he used the mainstream media’s grossly and intentionally understated numbers for the TEA Party rallies. But he’s using the very same method this time for the Occupy Wall Street world tour, which means he’s depending on the mainstream media’s overstated numbers for the crazies — and still coming up with a number that is a quarter the size of the TEA Party national event.

Then there’s the Denver crazies. Looking at the Left (which made Post of the Day at Legal Insurrection) has the Denver crazies in pictures. Socialists, Communists, anarchists demanding totalitarianism (I know, right?), dopeheads, anti-Semites, all manner of crazies. Quoting the murderous communist Che. Slogans like “Eat the rich”.

El Marco writes:

Ever since Karl Marx defined his vision of a future utopia, socialists have been awaiting the complete collapse of the world-wide free enterprise system, and the beginning of a cataclysmic international Marxist revolution. … The Occupy Wall Street movement is supported by Communist Party USA, the Islamic Republic of Iran [link to pollutico so goto Looking at the Left for that link], communist dictator Hugo Chavez, China, as well as the AFL-CIO, SEIU, Nancy Pelosi, [unrepentant terrorist] Bill Ayers, Barack Obama, and the Democrat Party and Marxist-Leninists generally [the site name has the f-bomb in it (I know, right?) so surfer beware].

North Korea supports Occupy Wall Street. Everyone wants what North Korea has, right? Everyone wants to be endorsed by North Korea, right? It would be terrible if South Korea endorsed your movement and North Korea hated it, right?

When your movement is supported by the American Nazi Party, terrorists, the greatest terrorist exporter (Iran), Socialists, Communists, the Purple People Beaters, murderers, it’s time to rethink your positions. Because you’re not only wrong, you’re terribly wrong.

But you want pictures from the photojournal of the Denver crazies in action, right? Here’s a couple.

Anarchism, according to the sign in front, is a totalitarian ideology. TRUE TRANSFORMATION TAKES 100%. No deviation allowed.

Who’d have thought that a crowd of people demanding the seizure of wealth from banks, corporations, and the wealthy might also have a few thieves? I’m shocked, shocked to find theft occurring in a group that has hijacked private property it refuses to leave. I can’t imagine that a crowd that demands free higher education and the forgiveness of tens of thousands in student debt would also think of someone’s Mac or an iPhone as equally as communal as a college education.

The best part of this story is that it sounds like the thieves might be creating a few proto-conservatives:

Security volunteer Harry Wyman, 22, of Brooklyn was furious about the thievery — and vowed to get tough with the predatory perps.

“I’m not getting paid, but I’m not gonna stand for it. Why people got to come here and do stupid stuff? All it does is make people not wanna come here anymore,” Wyman fumed.

Law and order! Get tough on crime! Defend private property! Hey, maybe there isn’t that much difference between this and a Tea Party after all — just a few years of experience and a couple of eye-opening insights on freeloaders.

Harry Wyman wants to get tough on crime? That is so very not Liberal! Why, it’s someone else’s fault the thieves were driven to thievery! It’s never the thief’s fault! Especially in a mob of “it ain’t my fault” freebie-seekers at the expense of the someone else whose fault it is. Yup, very proto-Conservative, that “get tough on crime” idea. Wyman’s in danger of losing his Lib card.

Republicans across the nation are learning quite well that one of the best tools in the shed for defeating Democrats is to tie Barack Obama to those Democrats. And Democrats are learning that as well. They are avoiding him like the plague in their election and re-election bids. Tim Kaine, former DNC head, former Virginia Governor, does not want to be seen with Obama. Claire McCaskill, Democrat Senator from Missouri who supported Obama in 2008 does not want to be seen with Obama. Many other Democrats don’t want to be seen with Obama and don’t want Obama to be tied to them. I saw an ad from a Virginia Democrat candidate talking about how Republicans are trying to compare him with Obama. The candidate himself said “That’s quite a stretch. I’m Pro-Life and Pro-Gun.”

As a matter of fact, Obama’s political campaign trips to North Carolina and Virginia had many stops planned that were subsequently dropped because the Democrat candidates in those areas didn’t want any ties at all to Obama or his “jobs” campaign trick. Because in all the “battleground” districts and states nationwide, both the Republicans and the Democrats know tying Barack Obama to the Democrat is like tying a boat anchor to Sham and stillexpecting Sham to win the Belmont Stakes. The idea of having a photo of Obama and these Democrats together strikes fear in the hearts of the Democrats, even this far out ahead of the election.

A New Spending Record

Washington had its best year ever in fiscal 2011.

Maybe it’s a sign of the tumultuous times, but the federal government recently wrapped up its biggest spending year, and its second biggest annual budget deficit, and almost nobody noticed. Is it rude to mention this?

The Congressional Budget Office recently finished tallying the revenue and spending figures for fiscal 2011, which ended September 30, and no wonder no one in Washington is crowing. The political class might have its political pretense blown. This is said to be a new age of fiscal austerity, yet the government had its best year ever, spending a cool $3.6 trillion. That beat the $3.52 trillion posted in 2009, when the feds famously began their attempt to spend America back to prosperity.

What happened to all of those horrifying spending cuts? Good question. CBO says that overall outlays rose 4.2% from 2010 (1.8% adjusted for timing shifts), when spending fell slightly from 2009. Defense spending rose only 1.2% on a calendar-adjusted basis, and Medicaid only 0.9%, but Medicare spending rose 3.9% and interest payments by 16.7%.

The Republicans claimed that they had cut spending, while the Democrats complained that we had cut spending. But, once you get down to real numbers, we increased total federal spending by 4.17%, during almost the same period in which the Bureau of Labor Statistics measured the Consumer Price Index increase at 3.8%.¹ Translation: despite the huge, draconian cuts in federal spending, total federal outlays increased at a rate greater than inflation!

Now, despite some taxes being cut, most notably the employees’ portion of Social Security taxes dropping from 6.2% to 4.2% for calendar year 2011 (which means nine out of the twelve months of FY2011), total federal tax receipts increased, by 6.52%. Thus, the deficit increased only very slightly ($4 billion, from $1,294 to $1,298 billion), despite the much larger increase in federal spending.

I guess that the word austerity simply means something different in Washingtonese than it does in English. When we are increasing total federal spending at a rate greater than inflation, somehow I fail to see how we are cutting spending, or running a no-frills, austere budget.

____________________________
¹ – The CPI measured was from September 2010 through August 2011; FY 2011 ran from October 2010 through September 2011.
____________________________
Cross-posted on Common Sense Political Thought.